Ahlus Sunnah in the west face a resurfacing trial, one that isn’t new to them.

The trial of a people who are displeased with the truemethodology of ahlil hadīth.

A people who are upset with the fact Ahlus Sunnah are distinguished from other than them, and wish to turn Salafiyah into a melting pot that accepts everyone and excludes no one, except its true proponents.

A people who accuse the people of Sunnah and hadīth of being harsh and extreme, due to their correct implementation of the methodology of Ahlul hadīth.

A people who attempt to paint Ahlus Sunnah as a people who do not believe in softness, gentleness and clemency and its application, as though they are not very familiar with those texts.

A people who call to Tamyī’ (watering the true methodology down) and attempt to make that fair seeming.

A people who throw out a ‘lifeline’ to those who seeks to destroy true Salafiyah with false misconstrued principles.

A people who have no concern except to attack the people of Sunnah and hadīth, and defend their methodology, while the true people of innovation are safe from their tongues, their writings and their videos.

A people who spread confusion and misguidance in the name of ‘justice’.

A people who are guilty of doing with Ahlus Sunnah, what they accuse Ahlus Sunnah of.

A people who accuse the callers to the Sunnah of being ignorant, while they are the true paupers in knowledge and are a people unknown.

A people who bring joy to the hearts of the people of misguidance for their ignorant defence of them, when they attempt to weaken the solid framework of Ahlul hadĪth.

Who accuse the defenders of the methodology of the companions and their successors of extremism, oppression and injustice, either by way of them using innovated principles or misusing established ones, but despite their (daily) efforts and striving, Ahlus Sunnah are not affected.

“ There will never cease to be a group from my Ummah manifest upon the truth, not being harmed by those who oppose them, nor those who forsake them until the affair of Allah comes and they are upon that”

(Bukhāri: 7311 Muslim: 156)

Neither are their attempts new to Ahlus Sunnah, they (Ahlus Sunnah) are very familiar with them!

He also said (as occurs in the hadeeth of Ibrāheem Ibn Abdur Rahmān Al ‘Udhri):

“This knowledge is carried in every generation by the trustworthy ones, they repel from it the distortions of those who go beyond bounds, the fabrications of those who fabricate, and the false interpretations of the ignorant’”

“When knowledge is meagre, disaffection and aversion becomes manifest, and when narrations (of the Salaf) are meagre, desires become plentiful”

(Al Fatāwā 17/308)

Abu bakr Al khawārizmi (d. 383H) said:

“Allah has refused to let anyone fall into a ditch except he who has dug it, for indeed the evil plot does not encompass except he who devises it!”

(Yateemiyatud Dahr: 4/226)

Thus he who is unhappy with the methodology of the Salaf, and speaks against it, and against those who defend and implement it, does nothing but harm himself, the methodology is Allah’s methodology, for it is his deen, and the one who seeks to please the people by speaking against it, earns the anger and wrath of Allah, regardless of the good he thinks he is doing.

“Whoever seeks to please Allah, by way of that which displeases the people, Allah will be pleased with him and will make the people pleased with him. And whosoever seeks to please the people through the displeasure of Allah, Allah will be displeased with him, and will make the people displeased with him”

Unfortunately, those who claim islāh (rectification) with their speech, do nothing but cause ifsād (corruption) through their ignorance (if we even accept they are being sincere)

The members of the Fatwā Committee of Saudi Arabia mention in refutation of Muraad Shukri who fell into negligence in Takfeer and followed the path of the murji’ah:

“It is upon the one whose feet are not firm upon knowledge; to refrain from entering into these affairs, so there does not come from him harm and corruption in aqĪdah far greater than the rectification they were hoping to achieve…”

(Fatāwā Al lejnatid Dā’imah: Fatwa no# 20212 – 2/135)

This individual (who I know personally and who came to my home in Madinah) thought he was doing well ‘defending the balanced position‘ but fell into negligence and had a group of individuals defending this ‘balanced’ position of his, in various countries! Therefore when individuals speak ‘In defense’ of the deen, we must attempt to perceive the goal and intent. What is the goal? What will the outcome of this speech be? What do they intend by their statements ultimately?

Imām Al Barbahāri mentioned:

“look!, May Allah show you mercy, to the speech of anyone you hear speaking in your time specifically and don’t be hasty, and don’t enter into anything from it until you ask, is it some thing the companions of the messenger used to say? Or any of the Ulamā? So if you find a narration then do not go past it for anything, and don’t choose anything over it and thus fall into the fire!”

(Sharhus Sunnah p23 – Point 5)

Pay attention to the statement of the Imām “..the speech of anyone you hear speaking in your time specifically” This is a clear indication that this manhaj was not restricted to the period of the Salaf as some would have us believe, rather for every time!

Imām Ahmad mentions in describing the people of innovation:

“..They utter ambiguous statements, and they begile the ignorant people by way of the ambiguity they present to them, so we seek refuge from the fitan of the people of misguidance!”

“The intent here is that they corrupt the textual evidences through that which they attribute to them from Qarmatah (definition will follow below) and distorting words from their places, just as they have corrupted intellectual evidences, and reversed the nature of perceived affairs from their reality, and by changing the Fitra that Allah has created things upon. Therefore they use general ambiguous speech, because that is better for purposes of delusion and misrepresentation”

(Minhājus Sunnah: 1/187)

Shaikh Abdur Rahmān Ibn Nāsir As S’adi said: ” Al Qarmatah (is a term used) in regard to textual evidence and safsatah (is a term used) in regard to intellectual evidence. they both come together in that they(these two terms) refer to rejection of what is not to be rejected, rejection of basic things, things known by necessity…(he goes on to mention)..Because evidence is of two types: Textual and Intellectual, thus textual evidence, if it is authentic and its indications are clear, then whosoever distorts its clear indications then (it is said) he has Qarmatah (fell into rejection of what is crystal clear) an attribution to the (deviant) Qarāmitah Bātiniyah (sect) those who explain text that are known by necessity to everyone with distortion, the like of which is recognized by the Aalim and the ignorant..”

(Al Ajwibatun Nāfi’ah 291-294)

Doubt 1: ‘We do not accept the warnings of the scholars except with proof, because ‘We are people of evidence’

We start with this doubt, because this claim, though it appears fair seeming, the real intent behind it is an evil one. It seeks is to destroy the status of the people of knowledge, their statements and their guidance. This doubt has been used throughout time to cunningly belittle the people of knowledge in the mind of the unsuspecting innocent layperson, and to replace the people of knowledge with these individuals, who present themselves as people skilled in the knowledge of understanding strong or weak evidences. Thus reliance falls upon them.

By way of this statement of theirs, the statements of the people of knowledge have little worth, rather true worth is in the hands of this individual who will dictate who and what is to be taken from and who and what is to be rejected. This is particularly when it come to the affair of their statements against the people of deviation. As though the people of knowledge do not speak from a standpoint of taqwa and fear of Allah, but desire. As if the people of knowledge are fickle individuals who speak against people upon a whim. The Salaf of this Ummah would truly value the statements of the people of knowledge. Not so these unknowns.

Then they will use, in order to slight the statements of the Ulamā, statements of the Imaams that where mentioned in relation to affairs of rulings of the shariah, connected to actions, dealings and ijtihād.

Such as the statement of Abu Hanīfah:

“It is not permissible to take from my statements unless you know where I took”

Or the statement of Imām Ash shāfi’i “If you find my statement going against the book or the Sunnah throw my statements against the wall”

These individuals regularly use statements and principles out of place or to oppose specific issues of methodology. it is well known that a principle in fiqh may not necessarily be a principle in aqidah and vice versa.

These aforementioned statements, are true statements that were mentioned to emphasise the importance of holding on to evidence in issues of shariah. But they are used by these individuals, to put doubt upon the statements, verdicts and advises of the Scholars, because when the scholars speak against someone and warns, often times the general person may not be acquainted with the reasons for the warning, and may not even understand the gravity of the issue, even if it were explained to them!

As Al Hasan Al Basri mentioned:

“The fitna, when it appears, it is known by the Ulamā, and when its tail end appears (i.e. when it is over) it is known by every general person”

That is to say when fitna arises it is spotted, detected and understood by the people of knowledge, how will the ignorant one perceive it, if it is intricate?

Based upon the statements of these ignoramuses, we should leave the general people to get engrossed in these issues, relying upon their own weak deficient understanding, possibly becoming unsatisfied with the evidence presented by those scholars, (since he (the layman) may be ignorant of the foundation that has been opposed) and thus go astray!

Knowledge of the men is in the hands of the people of Knowledge!

The Methodology of Criticism with the Salaf

It is established with the people of Sunnah and Hadīth, that the people of knowledge have a methodology related to criticism well known. This methodology is connected to the strong position they have against innovations in the religion, and is connected to the precise science of Jarh and ta’deel (Criticism or praise of the Narrators). None of that which we hear from the ignorant ones, about the ‘correct’ salafi position’ concerning deviant individuals, takes this science into consideration. Rather we hear the Ummah being referred back to the principles of the Ikhwaan Al Muslimīn repackaged as ‘True Salafiyah’!. Perhaps the reason for this is the fact that our communitites in the west have been strongly influenced by the da’wah of the Ikhwaan Al Muslimīn for decades (we will discuss this later inshallah), so the ignorant one refers back to this as ‘True Balanced Islām’and ‘Just Salafiyah’while it is nothing but ‘True Misguidance’.

The one who has knowledge of the method of criticism with the Salaf, their attitude towards it, and the statements of the people of Sunnah will be upon clarity

Sufyān Ath Thowri said:

“When a man who dies is mentioned then do not look towards the statements of the general people (i.e. praise or dispraise) rather look to the statements of the people of knowledge and intellect (in determining how he was)”

(Al Hilyah: 7/26)

Ibrāhīm ibn Shamās said

We asked Wakī’ (d. 196H or 197H) about Khārijah ibn Mus’ab (d. 168H a weak narrator of hadīth) and why he does not take from him, he replied:” I will not narrate from him, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal prohibited me from narrating from him”

(Tabaqāt Al Hanābilah: 1/392)

He did not mention here anything to do with the reason, just the warning!

Abu Moosā Muhammad Ibnil Muthanā (d. 252H) said “I saw in the lap of Abdur Rahmān Ibn Mahdi (d. 198H) a book wherein he had crossed out (the name of) a man so I said Oh Abu Sa’īd why have you crossed his hadīth out? He responded: Yahya Ibn Sa’īd (Al Qattaan: d. 198H) informed me that he has been accused of being upon the opinion of Jahm (ibn Safwān, the innovator) so I crossed his hadīth out”

(Al Hilyah: 9/6)

In this narration this great Imām in knowledge, piety and taqwa, did not take from a man due to an accusation, was this great Imām in Hadeeth pathetic and unjust?!

It was said to Ibn ‘Aun (d. 150H) ‘Why don’t you narrate from such and such? He responded: “Because Abu Bustām Shu’bah (d. 160H) left him”

(Taarikh Baghdaad: 9/260)

Was this typical ‘Cultish behaviour’ from Ibn Aun? Did he ‘oppress’ the one he refused to take from?

In this narration we see that these great scholars of the Salaf did not take knowledge from the aforementioned individuals and criticised their integrity, citing as their reason that the people of Hadīth and Sunnah did not take from them, people of Sunnah who were familiar with the man as his affair. Not once do we see them saying “..So I went to speak to him myself to verify” or “..but I will continue to take from them until the evidence is shown to me” or “did they advise him?” because they knew The People of Hadīth are most knowledgable concerning advice and nasīhah and that their speech is based upon them fearing Allah and knowing they will have to stand before Allah with what they say!

In fact even when individuals denyed with their own mouths what had been attributed to them, the people of Sunnah would not reject what was established with the people of Sunnah concerning the individual, since it is well known that the people of innovation are cunning, tricky and deceptive.

Imām Khateeb Al Baghdādi (d. 463H) mentions the statement of Sālih the son of Imām Ahmad who inform his father that some one had come to see him who said his name was daawūd (Dawūd ibn Ali Adh Dhāhiri) his father aid : “From where? He replied “Asbahān” he said: “what does he do? and Sālih did not do well to define who he was Abu Abdillah (Imam Ahmad) did not cease asking until he realised who he was. He said: Him! Muhammad Ibn Yahyā An Naisābūri wrote to me informing me that he holds that the qurān is created” so his son said: He negates and rejects that! He replied “Muhammad Ibn Yahyā is more trustworthy that him! do not give him permission to come to me!

(Collected by Khateeb Al Baghdādi in Tarīkh Al Baghdād 8/374)

Was this more ‘Cliche-ish‘ ‘Cultish‘, ‘Cringeworthy‘ behavior from Imām Ahmad? did Imām Ahmad wrong him by not accepting from him his denial? should he have ‘been more of a man’ and talk to him? Perhaps give him an interview..let him have his say! Or was this a methodology Well-Known?

Hamād ibn zaid (d. 179H b. 98) said Hamād ibn Abi Sulaimān (d.120H) the Shaikh of Abu Hanīfah came to us in Basrah and Ayoob (As Sikhiyaani: d. 131H b. 66) didn’t go to see him, so neither did we, for if Ayoob didn’t go to see someone we too would not go. Laith Ibn Abi Sulaim came to Us and Ayoob went to see him so we too went”

(Tabaqāt Ibn Sa’d: 7/286)

Bear in mind that Hamād ibn Abi Sulaimān was a taabi’i who had taken from Anas Ibn Maalik! and Ibraaheem An Nakhai’ and thatHamād Ibn Zaid was born in the year 98H. That would mean that if we were to say Hamād ibn Abi Sulaimān visited basra just before he died, Hamād Ibn Zaid wouldnt have been more than 18 years old! Shouldn’t Imaam Ayoob be teaching these young students the etiquette of visiting and taking from the people of knowledge? particularly this elderly man who was a student of the companion Anas Ibn Maalik? but though he was praised by some, he was accused of irjaa, thus Ayoob did not go to see him, neither did his many students. From his students were Sufyaan Ibn Uyainah, Sufyaan at Thawri, Hamād Ibn Salamah, Hamād Ibn zaid, Shu’bah, Ma’mar Ibn Raashid, Ismaa’il Ibn Ulaiyah to name but a few! And none of them went?!

No doubt the ignoramuses of our time would deem this ‘Cultish’ behaviour of the highest order!

Al Hasan Ibn Īsāsaid I asked (Abdullah) Ibn Mubārak (d. 181) about Asbāt (Ibn Muhammad (d. 200H)) and Muhammad Ibn Fudhail Ibn Ghazawān (d. 194H or 195H accused of the bid’ah of Tashayu’ (early Shi’ism)) and he remained silent. After a number of days he saw me and said “Oh Hasan your two companions (i.e. the two you asked me about) our companions (i.e. the people of Sunnah) are not pleased with them”

(Dhu’afaa ul “Uqaili: 1/119)

Al Hasan did not follow this statement up with “well what was their evidence??” so did they fall short in relation to giving the muslim his right? Or was it because this an affair well known!

Abdullah Ibn Umar As Sarkhasi said “I ate with a person of innovation once, and that reached Abdullah ibn Mubārak and he said: “I will not speak to him for thirty days!”

(Collected by Al lillakā’i in ‘Sharh I’tiqād Ahlis Sunnah: 1/139)

Did Abdullah Ibn Umar As Sarkhasi respond with: “Well why doesn’t he ask me what happened?” or “Subhanallah I could have had a number of reasons” or other similar arguments we hear from the ignorant ones! Was this ‘childish’ ‘cultish’ behavior from Ibnil Mubārak ?

If the Salaf held onto the principles these people claim, imagine the state the Ahādeeth of the Messenger of Allah would be in today!?

Statement such as “akhi just take benefit” or “dont listen to those brothers” or ” the shaikh is just a man with an opinion akhi!” or “What is the shaikhs evidence akhi” would have destroyed the Sunnah!

Certainly we will hear (from them) that these narrations are not acted upon correctly, or are not to be acted upon in this way (as though they are just some historical record!) or were for a particular time or or or…

Just as we hear these people quoting principles we have been teaching for over a quarter of a century, since the early nineties, as our teachers, the Ulamaa of Madinah, taught us, (from them Shaikhanā Hamād Al Ansāri (and his Son), Shaikhanā Umar Falāta, Shaihanā Abdul Muhsin Al ‘Abād (and his son), Shaikhanā Ali Nāsir Al Faqīhi, Shaikhanā Rabee’ Ibn Hādi, Shaikhanā Ubaid Al Jābiri, Shaikhanā Muhammad Ibn Hādi, Shaikhanā Abdullah al Bukhāri, Shaikhanā Ahmad An Najmi to name but a few. Or those who taught us the book of Allah. Such Shaikhanā Ubaidallah Al Afghāni or Abdullah Al Juhani among others. Or those who were our study companions who we benefited greatly from upon the path, such as Shaikh Usāma Al ‘Amri, Shaikh Fu’ād Al ‘Amri Shaikh Khālid Adh dhafeeri or Shaikh Nizār Hāshim Abbās among others, people we actually spent time and studied with, not odd visits)

Do these previously mentioned narrations mean we are calling to abandonment of evidence? Of course not but we must first understand what evidence (particularly in issue of jarh (disparagement)) is!

In response to this common doubt and in refutation of Abul Hasan Al Ma’ribi Our Shaikh Rabī Ibn Hādi mentions: (and pay close attention to this!):

“From the fundamental principles of Ahlis Sunnah is: ‘Know the truth, and you will know the men and the fact that the truth is not known because of the men (i.e. because it is held by certain individuals.

And from the fundamental principles of Ahlis Sunnah is: ‘Evidence is sought to substantiate positions held by individuals, they themselves are not the evidence.

And from the fundamental principles that Ahlus Sunnah have united upon is: ‘Whosoever the Sunnah of the messenger of Allah has become clear to, it is not permissible for him to leave it for anyone’ as Imām Ash Shāfi’ī has said

These fundamentals or evidences have been neglected, destroyed and wasted by Abul Hasan Al Ma’ribi and his supporters, he created a smokescreen of claims, that him and his followers reiterate, claiming to the people that they are Ahlus Sunnah and they are the ‘people of evidence’ and that they do not accept statements except with daleel (evidence) and that they are people of principles and other than them are unstable and fear the mention of fundamentals and principles, and that ‘ they do not make taqleed of anyone‘ and that such and such (people of knowledge and Sunnah) are not infallible, and that we are not bound to accept the statement of such and such nor such and such, and other such statements, the like of which, when incidents transpire, we see the statement of the guided khalifah Ali – Radhiyallahu anhu – concerning the khawaarij, being true of them. When they used to repeat their statement “Indeed rule is but for Allah!” so he said: ” A statement of truth, but what is intended by it is falsehood!” (Muslim:1066)

We recognise and understand, what they repeat and regurgitate from their great claims of:

‘Fundamentals’ and ‘principles’ and the ‘seeking of proofs’ and the ‘clinging to evidence’ and ‘fighting against taqleed’, and that ‘We don’t have popes or religious chiefs or custodians’.

We recognise and understand, that the apparent statement is truth, but they intend by way of it great falsehood, they intend by way of it agitation and wreaking havoc and fitan with the people of Haq and Sunnah.

So Ahlus Sunnah engaged them and confronted them, with the book and the Sunnah and with the Manhaj of the Salaf us Saalih and with their sound, guided principles, and they (Ahlus Sunnah) exposed these principles of theirs and stripped them of the ‘weapons’ they had the cheek and insolence to present, of ‘Fundamentals‘ and ‘Principles‘ and ‘proofs‘ and ‘evidences‘. So then they resorted to blind following, and clinging to ‘such and such said‘ and ‘such and such said‘ (such as that which we observe from them now in the west, “Shaikh such and such said about those brothers” (someone who knows nothing about them)! without a shred of evidence! Just claims (but that is accepted without question or ‘evidence’..How ironic!). Additionally (even) this wasn’t sufficient for them, so they resorted to what was worse than that, they resorted to attacking the text (or the book and the sunnah) through deception, severing (parts of evidence) and concealing (text)”

(Majmoo’ Ash Shaikh Rabī’ 13/175-176)

Bear in mind, Our Shaikh wrote these words in refutation of Abul Hasan 15 years ago!

As the Arab parable goes ما أشبه الليلة بالبارحة ‘How much tonight resembles last night!’ perhaps now it becomes clearer to some of us, why Shaikh Rabī sought from certain individuals to free themselves from Abul Hasan Al Ma’ribi, is it a coincidence then, that today we see them championing the very same rhetoric!

May Allah save us from being self-conceited, arrogant, vain-glorious individuals concerned only with promoting ourselves and our ‘achievements’ and grant us Knowledge of the ‘True‘ Manhaj of the Salaf of this Ummah.

Like this:

Indeed from the blessing of Allah upon the people of Sunnah and Hadīth in every age, is that their methodology is based upon principles extrapolated from the book, and the Sunnah and the consensus of the Sahabah.

They (Ahlus Sunnah) know, that opposing this consensus constitutes opposition of the methodology (known in Arabic as منهج – Manhaj) of this ummah. Evidence in any issue with them, returns back to that which is indicated by these sources, and opposition of the methodology revolves around opposition of this.

Many seem to consider the book and the sunnah as the only evidence in our Deen and neglect the evidence of the concensus of the Salaf and their principles? Is this not what makes us Salafi?

Our duty then, is to learn what they (the Salaf) were upon and cling to it. And to know that the principles of our methodology stem from this.

This is Salafiyah.

He who opposes these well known foundations and learns of his own error, must correct it, or Ahlus Sunnah will correct it for him (if the mistake was private, correction is done in private, if it was public (i.e. a public lecture or article) then his correction must likewise be public), in accordance with giving sincere advice to the Muslims in general.

One of the problems we have in this time, is the distance many have from these foundations, either they ignore them after knowing them, or they are ignorant of their application, or they are ignorant of them in totality.

Our Shaikh Rabee’ Ibn Hādi Al Madkhali used to say often, that the problem with many people is that they are detached from the books of the Salaf. If they were connected, they would be clear about the positions of the Salaf they claim to ascribe to and follow.

What I intend with this simple series is to highlight some of these principles of the salaf and the manner in which some of those who have weak implimentation of these principles (known as the Mumayyi’ah) oppose these principles, or create principles of their own, and attempt to attribute them to the methodology. But certainly, from the blessings of Allah upon this Ummah, is that Allah establishes for this ummah individuals who defend these principles and detect when they are being opposed, regardless of how cunningly the proponents of this deviation defend and spread their misguidance.

This methodology is inherited from those who possess it (i.e. the people of knowledge), it is not based upon guesswork or conjecture, nor acting upon what we deem to be ‘obvious’. Neither should it be presumed that everyone referred to as an ‘Ālim’ must, by necessity be knowledgeable concerning it. Such that if one ‘took from the scholars’ they too must be knowledgeable and aware of it.

This was an affair well-known.

Ibn Wahb (d.197H) – رحمه الله – mentioned:

“I met three hundred and sixty scholars, but had it not been for Mālik Ibn Anas and Al Laith Ibnus Sa’d, I would have gone astray in relation to the affair of knowledge” (Dhamul Kalām P876)

“My teachers were Hamād Ibn Zaid and Yazīd Ibn Zurai’, from which of the two of them would I have taken (the bid’ah of) Qadr from!?” (Al Kāmil” 1/203)

Thus seeking knowledge does not necessitate that a person will gain correct detailed knowledge of the methodology of the salaf, just as being from the people of knowledge does not, by default, necessitate that this scholar is skilled in the field of the intricasies of the methodology, since being knowledgable concerning good, does not automatically necessitate detailed knowledge of evil.

Hudhaifah – رضى الله عنه – mentioned “the people used to ask about the good but I used to ask about evil, fearing it will befall me..” therefore Hudhaifa would have had knowledge of evil that may not have been possessed by others.

From them is he who is an Imām in the Sunnah (i.e. knowledge of the methodology) and an Imām in Hadīth (i.e. knowledge of hadīth, its sciences, its men etc). From them is he who is an Imām in the Sunnah but not an Imam in hadīth. From them is he who is an Imām in Hadīth and not an Imām in Sunnah. As for he who is an Imām in the Sunnah and an Imām in hadīth, then that is the likes of Sufyān At Thawri” (Jarh wat Ta’dīl 1/118)

Imām Mālik has also been referred to elsewhere as an Imām in both fields, while Awzā’i has been refered to as an Imām in Sunnah not an Imām in hadīth.

This narration gives us a number of benefits:

The fact that the Salaf had a usage for the term ‘Sunnah’ other than the general meaning of hadīth

The fact that not all scholars are the same in terms of knowledge of the methodology

The fact that knowledge of hadīth DOES NOT necessitate knowledge of the methodology even if he is an Imām

If this was the case with ‘Imāms’ of the past, it goes without saying it is applicable to scholars of the present

If this is the case with an ‘Imām’ of the past, then it goes without saying this will likewise apply to the student of knowledge, by necessity (i.e. strength or weakness in knowledge of the methodology of the Salaf.)

We should not understand from this that Ar Radd alal Mukhālif (refutation of the one who opposes the principles of the religion) does not fall under the Hadeeth science of jarh wa ta’deel (disparaging and/or praising the narrators of hadīth). The people of innovation are the first of the people who this science is applied upon.

The doubts we will discuss in this series then, are doubts raised by those who have little true knowledge of the methodology of the Salaf. Hence they oppose the manhaj in various ways and then request ‘evidence’ that their opposition is incorrect. Opposition is opposition; the only thing that must be known, is that such and such a person actually said or wrote the statement. It is sufficient, as evidence of his error, for us to know, that he has opposed agreed upon principles of our Salaf. But he who is ignorant of them…is ignorant of them! While he who is aquainted with these principles, only has to hear of the opposition to know the individual has strayed from the path of the Salaf. Either he makes taubah and rectifys himself, or he persists upon error without change.

These doubts are not new, but regurgitated doubts reoccurring from time to time. In our era, there are a number of individuals also attributed to knowledge, who have promoted these doubts in our communities over the years, in the guise of ‘principles’. At the head of them Ali Hasan Al Halabi and Abul Hasan Al Maribi Al Misri among others. To the extent, that the one who is ignorant of the realities of the true manhaj of the Salaf, opposes it, and vehemently despises it, believes the aforementioned principles to be true Salafiyah, and to oppose these principles of theirs, is to oppose true Salafiyah, and is ‘destroying our communities’, while the truth of the matter is, these principles are destroying our communities, splitting our ranks and creating small pockets of individuals who feel ‘disenfranchised’ in fringe groups, displeased with the Salafi ‘state of affairs’, this is where the problem lies, not with the manhaj or the true methodology of the Salaf of this Ummah.

When people gather around this falsehood we have division in our ranks.

Thus we will mention, in as simple a manner as possible, these doubts, and the responses of the people of knowledge to them. At the head of those scholars, the responses of the vanguard of the manhaj in our era, our Shaikh Al ‘Alāmah Rabee’ Ibn Hādi Al Madkhali, may Allah preserve him.

Since in reality, their issue is actually with these scholars, they are the real target, they are the ones our real grievience is with, they are the real problem, attention must be turned away from them, the students in the west are but a intermediary annoyance. May Allah preserve us, our scholars, and the people of Sunnah in every land.

Perhaps the most popular is that which is attributed to Pope Gregory XIII. In France in 1582 he adopted the Gregorian calendar (named after him), in which he moved the beginning of the year from March (the end of March) to January 1.

People who were slow to get the news or failed to recognize that the start of the New Year had moved to January 1 and continued to celebrate it during the last week of March through April 1 became the butt of jokes and hoaxes.

They were ridiculed, and seen as foolish – and hence we have April Fool’s Day.

This theory is disputed though, since it is known historically that the Julian Calendar, established in 46BC, made January the first month of the year. Countries began to switch calendars, and it all ended up being a mess by the 1500s. Some countries started the year on different days.

A different theory is that April Fools’ Day is left over from the idea of renewal festivals, which marked the end of winter and the start of spring.

One of the oldest versions of this occasion was the Roman pagan festival Hilaria. It was a festival held in honor of Cybele, the mother of the gods. All kinds of games and amusements were allowed on this day; masquerades were the most prominent among them, and everyone might, in his disguise, imitate whomsoever he liked, and even magistrates.

The festival coincided with the spring equinox, and those who took part in the festival would wear disguises, play tricks on people and generally wreak havoc.

Regardless of whichever theory is correct the day is one based in falsehood, lies and striking false fear into the hearts of people.

The Prophet – Sallallahu alaihi was Salam said:

“It is not permissible for the believer to frighten another believer” (Abu Daawood (5004))

He also said: “The sign of the hypocrite are three: if he speaks he lies, and if he is given a trust he breaks it, and if he makes a promise he breaks his promise” (Saheeh Bukhaari (33) and Saheeh Muslim (59) upon the authority of Abu Hurairah)

He also said: “Be truthful for indeed truthfulness, leads to righteousness, and indeed righteousness leads to Jannah. Indeed a man remains truthful and is diligent about being truthful until he is written with Allah as a truthful person” (Saheeh Bukhaari (5743) and Saheeh Muslim (2607) upon the authority of Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood)

Therefore there is no such thing as a ‘white lie’ in Islaam, all of it is black.

If this lying is combined with resemblance of the pagans with their festivities, then it becomes worse.

“..This affair, the affair of April fools day, which the question was posed concerning, is haraam from two angles;

Firstly because it is lies..

That which makes it worse is the fact that it has in it resemblance of the non-Muslims..if a Muslim lies and startles his brother Muslim, and causes him to be frightened, or intensely alarmed to the extent that he may even be afflicted with an illness (due to it). When it is said to him for example ‘such and such has passed away’ from those who are dear to him. Whether his father or brother or son or daughter, or that it is said to him ‘your house has been burgled’ or that ‘your house has been burnt down’ or the likes, from the great affairs that may (possibly) cause a person to enter a state of insanity or delirium, he may lose his mind or become ill. Who then would be responsible for this? It would fall upon this liar!”

Another most important piece of evidence for Darwinian evolution is that of the fossil records. Since the theory revolves around decent with modification, and the earliest life forms changing very gradually in incremental stages, it should follow, that the best way to trace those changes is by studying the fossil records that exist for life on earth. Of course, if the theory is correct, the fossil records should be abundant with evidence of the varying life forms that have mutated and gradually became various species of animal. We should also witness some of the mutated animals that have died out, and their fitter, stronger successors.

It is a fact that Darwin had a hard time trying to get acceptance for his theory, but most people are unaware that Darwin’s most formidable opponents were not clergymen, but fossil experts.

Jerry A. Coyne is a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at The University of Chicago and a leading evolutionist.

According to Coyne, “if evolution meant only gradual genetic change within a species, we’d have only one species today—a single highly evolved descendant of the first species. Yet we have many… How does this diversity arise from one ancestral form?” It arises because of “splitting, or, more accurately, speciation,” which “simply means the evolution of different groups that can’t interbreed.”

If Darwinian theory were true, “we should be able to find some cases of speciation in the fossil record, with one line of descent dividing into two or more. And we should be able to find new species forming in the wild.” Furthermore, “we should be able to find examples of species that link together major groups suspected to have common ancestry, like birds with reptiles and fish with amphibians.”

Coyne turns first to the fossil record. “We should be able,” he writes, “to find some evidence for evolutionary change in the fossil record. The deepest (and oldest) layers of rock would contain the fossils of more primitive species, and some fossils should become more complex as the layers of rock become younger, with organisms resembling present-day species found in the most recent layers. And we should be able to see some species changing over time, forming lineages showing ‘descent with modification’ (adaptation).” In particular, “later species should have traits that make them look like the descendants of earlier ones.” (Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 17-18, 25)

This issue is one that evolutionist past and present acknowledge. They accept that the fossil records should be the greatest testimony to Darwin’s theory. But it isn’t.

As Coyne writes “We should be able to find some evidence for evolutionary change in the fossil record…” but we don’t! this of course is a catastrophic problem for the theory.

In The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin acknowledged that the fossil record presented difficulties for his theory.

Darwin knew that the major animal groups—which modern biologists call “phyla”—appeared fully formed in what were at the time the earliest known fossil-bearing rocks, deposited during a geological period known as the Cambrian.

The ‘Cambrian Explosion’

The oldest of all fossil records at the time of Darwin were the Cambrian fossil records.

This discovery, found in Cumbria, south Wales is possibly the greatest and most popular breakthrough fossil discovery.

This phenomenon is so dramatic that is it known as the Cambrian Explosion (referred to as such, because most of the major animal phyla or groups, appear within it, all of a sudden) hence biologists refer to it as biology’s ‘big bang’ (not a reference to an actual explosion).

But the fossil record doesn’t have within it, a few species that diverged gradually over millions of years into genera then families then orders then classes then phyla.

In the Cambrian it was discovered that there were over 50 body plans — simple to complex — appearing suddenly in the fossil record without any trace of gradual modification.

Thus most of the major animal phyla and the major classes within it appear together …fully formed! Darwin could not explain it except with conjecture.

He considered this a “serious” difficulty for his theory, since “if the theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited long periods elapsed… and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures.” And “to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.” So “the case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained”

Charles Darwin plainly stated, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been produced by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Darwinian evolution requires geological time periods, making the fossil record a vital ally in the corner of scientific materialism. Unfortunately for Darwin and his advocates, the fossil record has some major problems. First, the fossil record offers little to no evidence of transitional forms — those intermediary life forms bridging the gaps between known species.

One might therefore suppose, that geologists would be continually uncovering fossil evidence of transitional forms. This, however, was clearly not the case. What geologists did discover was species, and groups of species, which appeared suddenly rather than at the end of a chain of evolutionary links. Darwin conceded that the state of the fossil evidence was “the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory,”

According to Steven Stanley, the Bighorn Basin in Wyoming contains a continuous local record of fossil deposits for about five million years, during an early period in the age of mammals. Because this record is so complete, paleontologists assumed that certain populations of the basin could be linked together to illustrate continuous evolution. On the contrary, species that were once thought to have turned into others turn out to overlap in time with their alleged descendants, and “the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.” In addition, species remain fundamentally unchanged for an average of more than one million years before disappearing from the record.

The Maths of the theory

There are some issues related to the theory that do not add up. Bare in mind, the theory revolves around gradual change over time. To demonstrate the problem, paleontologist Stephen Stanley uses the example of the bat and the whale, which are supposed to have evolved from a common mammalian ancestor in little more than ten million years, to illustrate the unsolvable problem that fossil stasis poses for Darwinian gradualism: Let us suppose that we wish, hypothetically, to form a bat or a whale by a process of gradual transformation of established species. If an average chronospecies (fossil lifespan of a species lasts nearly a million years, or even longer, and we have at our disposal only ten million years, then we have only ten or fifteen chronospecies to align, end-to-end, to form a continuous lineage connecting our primitive little mammal with a bat or a whale. This is clearly preposterous. Chronospecies, by definition, grade into each other, and each one encompasses very little change. A chain of ten or fifteen of these might move us from one small rodent like form to a slightly different one, perhaps representing a new genus, but not to a bat or a whale!

The other issue at hand is proving decent through modification. If we were to suppose that we had two fossils of animals that resemble one another that according to our dating seemed to precede each other. How exactly do we establish that one has ‘evolved’ from the other except through conjecture as overwhelming as it may well be.

The late evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould acknowledged this as “the trade secret of paleontology.” He went on to admit, “The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” This is a reference to the well-known ‘tree of evolution’ that we find in our biology textbooks. The only thing that we have concrete evidence for it that which exists at the tips of the branches of the tree, everything that exists in those drawing lower down in the tree have been added based upon ‘belief’ and conjecture and not evidence.

Other Darwinists have suggested that the absence of fossils is a problem with the fossil record itself rather than with evolutionary theory. That is to say even though we don’t have evidence for the theory in fossil records, it is because the fossil records are deficient and we will eventually discover fossil that will prove it. Again we see proof of the fact that the theory was thought up first and then evidence was sought for it! Even though evidence does not exist, evolutionists still postulate that the theory is ‘established’ even in the absence of categorical proof. And it is with this ‘blind faith’ we see believers in the theory debate.

The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their time on earth. They appear in the fossil record, looking pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.

Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”

In short, if evolution means the gradual change of one kind of organism into another kind (a process considered by later-day darwinists (or neo-darwinists) to have occurred through genetic mutations), the outstanding characteristic of the fossil record is the absence of evidence for evolution. Darwinists explain away the sudden appearance of new species by saying that perhaps the transitional intermediates were for some reason not fossilized, and that perhaps the soft frames of the creatures caused them to dissappear and not be fossilised! But stasis- the consistent absence of fundamental directional change- is positively documented. It is also the norm and not the exception.

Next, there is the problem of interpretation. As Ian Tattersall, Curator of the American Museum of Natural History, confesses, “The patterns we perceive are as likely to result from our unconscious mind-sets as from the evidence itself.” Richard Leakey admitted as much when he disclosed the tendency of his father (palaeontologist Louis Leakey) to arrange fossils and alter their criteria to fit into a line of human descent. That is to say, the fossils that do exist are ‘re-arranged’ to fit with evolutionist theory and not left in the manner in which they were discovered.

But most damaging to the integrity of the fossil record is the cloud of fraud that hangs over it. As reported in the February 2003 issue of Discover, “Such so-called missing links as Java man, Nebraska man, Piltdown man, and Peking man were eventually shown to be outright fabrications. …Today there are scores of fake fossils out there and they have cast a dark shadow over the whole field … there is a fake fossil factory in north-eastern China…. The Chinese fossil trade has become a big business.”

For 150 years the fossil record has ‘refused’ to affirm gradualism and, with it, Darwin’s theory of evolution

Stephen J. Gould said:

“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions…has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution”

(Evolution Now P.140)

Darwinists claim they have found the missing link between land mammals and whales but they admit none could have been an ancestor of the other, it is impossible in principle to show that any two fossils are genealogically related.

In 1998 and 1999 the Us national academy of sciences published two booklets defending darwins theory of evolution. According to the 1998 booklet fossils provide the first of several ‘compelling‘ lines of evidence that ‘demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt‘ that all living things are modified decendants of a common ancestor’

The 1999 booklet claims that the theory has been ‘thoroughly tested and confirmed’ by several categories of evidence. First of all the fossil record which provides consistent evidence of systematic change through time, and decent with modification. Most biology texts books take the same deceptive line.

Darwinism is the theory of gradualism from common descent: the slow process whereby complex life forms emerge from simpler ones that have accumulated modifications through the mechanisms of variation and natural selection. This should be recorded in fossil history.

Fossils certainly prove that the earth was once populated by creatures that are no longer with us. The fossil record also provides evidence that the history of life has passed through several stages, only the most recent of which includes us.

Darwins ‘Tree of Life’

Imagine having a chronoscope that would enable you to peer back in time to the origin of the first animal. Perhaps a primitive sponge. The sponge makes more sponges like itself and if darwins theory is true, after thousands of generations this sponge population splits into two different kinds of sponges which are called separate species. After millions more generations and the origin of a few more species some species become so different from each other that we split them into two genera (plural of genus) after countless more generations the differences are so great within those genera that we divide them into two families. As differences continue to accumulate, we eventually group the splitting of those families into two of more ‘orders’ and various orders into two or more ‘classes’ despite all the generations and the differences however we might still have only sponges. Then another major type of animal emerges perhaps jellyfish. This animal would be so radically different from the others that we wouldn’t just class it as another sponge. Rather it is an entirely new category, a phylum (plural of phyla).

This pattern of gradual divergence from a common ancestor with major differences occurring only after a long accumulation of minor differences, is how Darwin envisioned evolution.

These transitional links present here would create a branching pattern Darwin called the great tree of life he demonstrated this with a sketch in the origin of species. It the bottom of the tree graph were the primitive sponge from which all other animals decended, then most of the branches above it would be sponges, the major differences, the phyla would appear only at the top after a long history of branching due to the accumulation of minor differences.

Biologists recognise several dozen animal phyla based upon major differences in body plans. There are over a dozen phyla of worms alone. There are even more striking differences between worms and mollusc’s, (clams and octopuses), Echinoderms (starfish and sea urchins), arthropods (lobsters and insects) and vertebrates (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals)

If Darwin’s theory were true then these major differences should only make their appearance at the top of his great tree of life…but the fossil records shows exactly the opposite, they appear in the lower levels of the Cambrian discovery !

Each of the divisions of the biological world (kingdoms, phyla, classes, orders), it was noted, conformed to a basic structural plan, with very few intermediate types. Where were the links between these discontinuous groups? The absence of transitional intermediates was troubling even to Darwin’s loyal supporter T. H. Huxley, who warned Darwin repeatedly in private that a theory consistent with the evidence would have to allow for some big jumps (since there is no evidence for the incremental gradual changes).

Darwin posed the question himself, asking why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?

Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?

He answered with a theory of extinction which was the logical counterpart of “the survival of the fittest.

In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”

( “Presentation to the American Museum of Natural History (1969),” in David M. Williams & Malte C. Ebach, “The reform of palaeontology and the rise of biogeography—25 years after ‘ontogeny, phylogeny, palaeontology and the biogenetic law’ (Nelson, 1978),” Journal of Biogeography 31 (2004): 685-712)

Therefore the issue remains the same, the claim of ‘evidence’ is still an unestablished myth. Evolution is still a ‘belief’. The issue is intensified though, by ‘hidden’ fossil discoveries, that have been intentionally concealed and we will look into that in the following part inshaa’allah.

(They took to flight because of their) arrogance in the land and their plotting of evil. But the evil plot encompasses only him who makes it. Then, can they expect anything (else), but the Sunnah (way of dealing) of the peoples of old? So no change will you find in Allah’s Sunnah (way of dealing), and no turning off will you find in Allah’s Sunnah (way of dealing). {Suratul Fātir: 43}

The prophethood of the final messenger Muhammad was no different, there have been many attempts to disprove the Messengership Of Muhammad in the past, just as they did during his time.

This series looks at some of the present day claims against the call of Prophet Muhammad and the religion of Islām he came with and responds to some of these claims.

Hopefully this series will be of benefit to the believers generally and those who are active in the arena of da’wah specifically.

Was Sallallahu ‘alā Nabiyinā Muhammad.

Doubt 1: There is no such thing as ‘Allah’, our knowledge of evolution disproves his existance.

Ibn Abi Haatim mentions under the biography of Yusuf Ibn Khaalid As Samti:

“I refused to accept the statement of Yahya Ibn Ma’een concerning him, wherein he referred to him as a ‘Zindeeq’ (Heretic) until a book that he wrote supporting ‘Tajahum’ (The aqeedah of the Jahmiyah) chapter after chapter, was brought to me. He rejected within it belief in the scales on the day of Judgement. It was then that I knew that Yahya Ibn Ma’een did not speak except upon foresight and understanding!” Continue reading →

From the many people who claim to call to the Qur’aan and implementing it in these times, few are those whos call is in accordance with that which we saw the Salaf of this Ummah upon, in regards to following it and ‘truly’ adorning oneself with its Continue reading →

It should be known that this small series was not intended to be a detailed ‘rebuttal’ of Al Hajoori, rather the intent of the series was merely to enumerate some of the many issues the people of knowledge and students of knowledge have against him, hence the title ‘Observations’. Continue reading →